9088
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
Available online at www.elixirpublishers.com (Elixir International Journal)
Linguistics and Translation
Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
A Skopos-based study on translation of interjections from English into Persian
in drama
Alireza Shahraki1, Amin Karimnia2 and Habibollah Mashhady3
1
Department of English Language, Fars Science and Research Brach, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran.
2
Department of English Language, Fasa Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fasa, Iran.
3
Department of English Language, University of Zabol.
A R TI C L E I N F O
A B ST R A C T
Art i c l e h i st ory :
Received: 16 April 2012;
Received in revised form:
15 June 2012;
Accepted: 20 June 2012;
This study aimed at researching and investigating the translation of interjections from
English into Persian in drama from a skopos-based view. To carry out this study, ten
dramas were chosen. Five out of these ten dramas have not been performed on any stages in
Iran, but the remaining five dramas were performed at least once. Twenty most commonly
used interjections in current English were elicited from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary (2009) with their meanings. These interjections were searched in the dramas by
the aid of computer softwares (AntConc© And adobe acrobat reader™). Then, the obtained
interjections were analyzed through the strategies proposed by Cuenca (2002b). The
statistical calculations showed that there is a significant difference between the literal
translation and other strategies. This significant difference proved the main hypothesis of the
study which was that the most common strategy used for translating interjections by the
Persian translators is literal translation. The second hypothesis was proven too in that many
interjections used in the Current Persian are the results of interference from English
language.
K ey w or d s
Functional approach,
Skopos theory,
Drama translation,
Interjections,
Interference.
© 2012 Elixir All rights reserved.
Introduction
This study deals with interjections in the translation of
English dramas. It compares the use of interjections in original
English dramas and their translations. Taking into account the
principles of Skopos theory of Vermeer (1984), the researchers
have analyzed differences in translation of interjections in two
categories of dramas. The first category is the dramas which are
not performed on the stage, and the second one is that of dramas
which have been performed on the stage by some actors. In fact,
the researchers analyzed the translation of interjections
regarding the purpose of translation. This topic was chosen
because though interjections are a quite important means of
expression, no direct attention has been paid to them in
linguistics or translation theory. Toury (1995) states that “in
translation, phenomena pertaining to the make-up of the source
text tend to be transferred to the target text” (p. 275). So
interference is a translation universal, and it is therefore worthy
investigating which language features are most liable or
permeable to it. Interjections are characteristic features of
language, and in this study, the researchers have investigated
that to which extent, interjections are liable to interference.
Skopos Theory
The Greek word Skopos that means aim or purpose was
introduced by Vermeer (1984, p. 55). They believe that the
translations vary alongside with the skopos of translation. So, for
every work to be translated, the translator should at first, define
a skopos in decision making process. Again they emphasize on
the hierarchy of ST and the translator being knowledgeable
enough for identifying these hierarchies. The importance of
the different parts of the ST can be evaluated before
translation, and the actual time of the changes either before,
Tele:
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
© 2012 Elixir All rights reserved
during or after the process, is only a practical matter. Let me
give an example, a translator who wants to translate a work of
Shakespeare, must be familiar with the tiny puns which exist in
his works, to be able to adapt the right strategies to translating
the work for ordinary Persian readers. So, first of all, a
translation must be coherent and understandable to the target
language readers.
Coming back to the notion of adequacy, Vermeer adopted a
different view about the terms of adequacy and equivalence
(1984, p. 76). In their view, a translation is adequate only if its
purpose is preserved in the target language. In fact, here the
response of TT readers to the translation is important, and this
response should be similar to that of ST readers, when they read
the ST. here, the equivalent is defined with function. If the TT
preserves the same function as the ST had in source language,
the translation is said to be adequate and the ST and TT are
equivalent. (Vermeer, 1984)
What is an Interjection?
Interjections are a part of language which is so ambiguous.
This is a peculiar word class. Several scholars such as
Ameka(1992); Cuenca(2000, 2002a) and Goffman(1981) argue
that this class is peripheral to language and actually show nonlinguistic characteristics, just like gestures and vocal
paralinguistic devices. Some other scholars such as Wharton
(2000), Jovanovich (2004) and Fraser(1990) put emphasis on
the linguistic features of interjections and argue that interjections
have been often collapsed with other phenomena such as
exclamations, discourse markers, or inserts. So, interjections are
naturally a very controversial word class.
9089
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
The researchers provide you with different definitions of
interjections by several scholars, just to clarify this controversial
essence.
One definition of interjection given by Bruti and Pavesi(
2008). is: “an outcry to express pain, surprise, anger, pleasure or
some other emotion […] interjections belong to the oldest forms
of speech and represent the most primitive type of sentence” (p.
104) or “Interjections are generally uninflected function words
and have sometimes been seen as sentence-words, since they can
replace or be replaced by a whole sentence (they are
holophrastic)” (p. 105).
Cuenca (2000) defines interjections as “communicative
units (utterances) which can be syntactically autonomous, and
intonationaliy and semantically complete” (p. 332).
So, as the definitions vary, it seems that interjections are
both theoretically and descriptively challenging to language and
translation. There are similar word forms or word-formation
processes in all languages, regarding interjections, but
conditions of use are not the same. Because of this
grammaticalized nature, “interjections are taken as idiomatic
units or routines, syntactically equivalent to a sentence.”
(Cuenca, 2002b, p. 21)
On Translation of Drama
In every genre of translation, when the notion of contrastive
analysis is raised, one may consider about measurement and
evaluation. In fact, the notions of equivalence and evaluation are
inseperable parts of translation studies. Nevertheless, before the
mid 1970’s the translation were measured against some
idealized notion of equivalence. In fact, the TTs were mere
reproduction of the original texts, and the approach toward
translation evaluation was so normative. It was selective too, in
that most critiques tried to, by confronting individual STs and
TTs, demonstrate the superiority of source text over target text
(Ameka, 1992).
There were two trends. A more linguistic-oriented approach
which puts its focus on literary translation and a retrospective
oriented approach, which considered translation as a process of
textual transfer of the ST. On the other hand, there was a
tendency to deviate from reserved and sacred position of source
text and traditional preoccupations of it, and move toward the
acceptance of the target text as a product in its own right
(Ameka,1992).So, as you see, the focus is no longer on the
textual transfer, but is on the acceptance of the translation in the
target culture and cultural interchange which occurs during this
process.
But what is the position of theatre and drama translation in
this dichotomy. On the linguistic-oriented side, Jovanovic
((2004, p.517) states that “linguistic expressions in theatre is a
structure of signs constituted not only as discourse signs, but
also as other signs”. Bassnet (1980) also provides some basic
problems of drama translation, in that the translator sometimes
alters the ideological basis of the source text, and overemphasize the extra-linguistic criteria, in order to overcome
linguistic and stylistic problems. She states that:
“in trying to formulate any theory of theatre translation,
Jovanovic’s description of linguistic expression must be taken
into account, and the linguistic element must be translated
bearing in mind its function in theatre discourse as a whole”
(Bassnett, 1980, P.123)
In fact, she emphasizes on the linguistic elements at the prosodic
level.
On the other hand and with regard to second trend,
Aaltonen (2000, p.26) states about manipulation of otherness in
translated drama that “the translator makes conscious or
unconscious choices, which are not accidental by nature, but
imposed on him\her by the system to which the completed
translation will belong as an element”. Indeed, she asserts that
the survival of a translator as a drama translator highly depends
on how far he or she can move away from the conventions of the
translation, and how the system of translation tolerates his or her
translational choices. Again she asserts that “in translation,
foreign drama is transplanted into a new environment, and the
receiving theatrical system sets the terms on which this is done.
A play script must communicate and be intelligible at some
level, even if it should deviate from existing norms and
conventions” (Aaltonen, 2000, p.27)
By contrasting these two opposite trends, one cannot come
to a clear decision, whether to follow the first trend or the
second one. It is still the subject of many debates. Anyways,
some scholars like Bassnett(1980) are of the first trend. They
believe in textual transfer of ST, and intend to contrast STs and
TTs in a way that shows the priority ST over TT. On the other
hand, scholars like Aaltonen and Ladeuceur, focus on the second
trend. They claim that acceptance of a drama translator depends
on his\her deviation from translational norms and conventions.
Indeed, they believe that in theatrical translation, some kind of
adaptation or version which is adapted according to cultural, as
well as social norms of the target culture is more accepted.
Of note is that, the researchers are not going to prescribe or
suggest neither the first one, nor the second one. Instead, he
leaves the conclusion to the respected reader, whether to trend
the first approach or the other one. This discussion was
mentioned here, because the researchers intended to see if the
Persian drama translators directly transferred the interjection
into Persian and in fact, transplanted them, or they adapted a
version which is accepted in Persian language.
So, beside the mere transference of meaning, cultural
elements and target language translational norms are also
important, and the translations should be approached at the
prosodic level.
Mateo, in her work (1995), again discusses the transfer of
drama through different cultures and describes it as a travel
which helps provide material for good plays in the target culture.
She studies the factors which determine both insertion of a play
in the target culture and the strategies that make the play
accepted in different cultures.
Research Questions
The present study addresses the following two questions:
1. What are the strategies used by translators for translating
interjections?
2. Do interjections cause any interference in Persian language?
Methodology
Data Collection Procedures
Drama is not a genre, so widespread in Persian translation.
Searching the libraries and Persian electronic databases, the
researchers could not find more than 30 to 35 dramas, translated
in Persian. Most of these dramas were the works of Shakespeare
who is an excellent playwright and a specialist. From among
other playwrights whose works have been translated into
Persian, the researchers could name Miller, Jonesko, O’neill,
Strinderberg, Colts and Pinther .
Choosing all of these dramas was beyond the scope of this
study, due to time limitations and huge corpus they make. As the
9090
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
name of the study reveals, selection of the works was quite
purposefully, regarding the skopos theory of Vermeer (1989).
The function the translation deserves is so important,
because there was a skopos defined for the translations. Half of
the selected works have not been performed on any stages in
Iran, and the rest of the works have been performed at least once
on the stage. So, the function is clear. The researchers sought to
investigate the strategies and procedures through which, the
Persian translator has translated the interjections. Besides, he
sought to see if there are any differences in translating the
interjections, regarding the function of translation (being
performed on the stage or not).
The researchers should note that, there are currently more
than 550 interjections, available in the English language, and
there are new ones being introduced into this huge collection,
daily. Investigating and identifying all of these interjections is
not possible in a single study, since it is a very special and time
consuming task. The researchers chose 20 most commonly used
interjections in the current English language usage. This 20interjection list is derived from Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English Dictionary and Wikipedia, the online
encyclopedia of English.
Here is important of note that, after the researchers
contacted the Iranian national TV (IRIB), they found out that
there are only five dramas which have not been performed on
any stages. This limitation forced the researchers to decrease the
scope of the study to just ten dramas. In order to reserve the
validity and reliability, and regarding the skopos theory, all of
the dramas which were not performed on the stage were chosen,
and also five dramas were chosen randomly from among the
performed dramas, to make it ten.
The electronic versions of these dramas were downloaded
both in PDF and TXT format. The PDF format was required for
adobe acrobat reader™ and wordsmith® which are computer
programs, used for word processing. The TXT format was
required for AntConc© which is a concordancing software, and
a big help to the study.
Firstly, the researchers loaded the downloaded files from the
internet, in adobe acrobat reader™ and wordsmith®, in order to
find the 20 most commonly used interjections. These
interjections were typed in the search bar one by one and the
programs did well in finding them in the whole text. About 700
interjections were found in these ten dramas. These samples
were compared to their Persian equivalents which were either
printed (in paper) or in electronic version, to see what strategies
have been used for translating them.
To ensure that all of the interjections have been found, the
TXT files were again loaded, this time in AntConc©. This
software is a more comprehensive and advanced software for
fulfilling the task, since it is able to search for case sensitive
words and word clusters, providing the researchers with the page
number and co-text (a couple of sentence before and after the
highlighted word).
Data analysis procedures
Based on Baker’s (1992, 2009) proposal, Cuenca (2002)
proposes six strategies for translating interjections. These
strategies are:
1. Literal translation.
2. Translation by using an interjection with dissimilar from, but
the same meaning
3. Translation by using a non-interjective structure with similar
meaning
4. Translation by an interjection with different meaning.
5. Omission.
6. Addition of elements. (p. 27)
The twenty most commonly used interjections in English
and the meanings they express are provided in Table 1. The first
ten interjections are of primary type, and the second ten
interjections are of secondary type.
Table1. Twenty Common Interjections in English and their
Communicative Functions
interjection
Ah
Dear
Hey
Hi
Hmm
Oh, o
Well
Alas
Eh
Er
Shit
Damn
God
Gosh
Christ
Excellent
Great
Absolutely
Right
All aright
Communicative Function
Expressing pleasure
Expressing realization
Expressing resignation
Expressing surprise
Expressing pity
Expressing surprise
Calling attention
Expressing surprise
Expressing joy
Expressing greeting
Expressing hesitation,
Doubt,
Or disagreement
Expressing surprise, Expressing pain, Expressing pleading
Expressing surprise
Expressing anger
Expressing resignation
Used when pausing in speech
Expressing sorrow
Expressing regret
Expressing concern
Expressing pity
Asking for repetition, Expressing enquiry, Expressing surprise,
Inviting agreement
Expressing hesitation
Expressing anger
Expressing annoyance
Expressing disgust
Expressing surprise
Expressing impatience
Expressing anger, Expressing annoyance
Expressing anger
Expressing surprise
Expressing shock
Expressing distress
Expressing surprise, Expressing emphasis, Expressing annoyance,
Strength of feeling
Expressing irritation
Expressing surprise
Expressing shock
Expressing annoyance
Expressing something extremely good
Expressing pleasure
Expressing anger
Expressing annoyance
Expressing pleasure
Expressing enthusiasm
Expressing emphasis,
Expressing agreement
Expressing agreement,
Calling for attention
Expressing agreement
Used to show you understand sth
Threatening
Expressing challenge
Checking agreement
Showing you heard sth
Calling for attention
Admitting
Saying hello
The meanings and equivalents of the interjections were
elicited from some comprehensive and well-known dictionaries
such as Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The Persian equivalents were
9091
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
looked up in Ariyanpour English-Persian Dictionary and
Millennium English-Persian Dictionary which are both trusted
and comprehensive dictionaries to the Persian language users.
To ensure that all the meanings are suitable and satisfying, the
researchers used a specialist dictionary about interjections,
named a Dictionary of Onomatopoeia in Persian by Kamyar
(1996). This dictionary is the benchmark for this study, since the
equivalents provided for the interjections in this dictionary, are
the most appropriate ones in Persian language.
The next step was close investigation and comparison
between the original interjections and their equivalents. The
researchers have taken into consideration both co-text and
context of use of the special interjections, in order to reserve the
greatest validity and reliability of the results of the study. It is of
note that when the researchers were not sure about the meaning
of the interjections, he either guised the meaning based on the
context or marked it as unspecified meaning.
The interjections elicited from the corpus (ten dramas),
were compared to their translation in Persian, precisely. Then
they were analyzed according to Cuenca’s categories which
were mentioned before. The frequency of their occurrence under
each category were compared and investigated to determine
whether a statistically significant difference exists between these
two.
Data Analysis
In this study, the strategies proposed by Cuenca (2002) were
used as the yardstick and the criteria against which, the data
were tested and analyzed.
The six categories proposed by Cuenca were categorized as
follows:
a. literal translation
b. translation by using an interjection with dissimilar form, but
the same meaning
c. translation by using a non-interjective structure with similar
meaning
d. translation by an interjection with different meaning
e. omission
f. addition of elements
This categorization was for the ease of demonstration of
these strategies in the tables and figures. After the categorization
of the data under these categories, the Chi square value for each
category was precisely calculated. Then, these values were
compared to see if there is significant difference in the strategies
used for the translation of interjections. Five examples for each
category are provided, just to demonstrate how the data were
analyzed.
The 20 most commonly used interjections in current English
needed to be mentioned here, again. Here, each category in
Cuenca’s (2002) categorization is provided alongside with their
frequency of occurrences. For more elaboration and
clarification, one example is provided for each category.
Although this study was of qualitative type and sought to just
describe the quality of translation, but the researchers deemed it
helpful to provide suggestions, wherever the meaning is
rendered into Persian, incorrectly or inappropriately.
a. Literal translation:
This strategy was the most frequent strategy, used by the
Persian translators. It constituted about 44% of the samples
selected. As its name reveals, literal translation is direct
rendering of the original word, transferred with the closest
equivalent in the target language. The occurrences are as follow:
Table 2. Strategy a and its Frequency
Strategy
Literal translation
Number of occurrences
136
Here is an example from the texts:
1. Hey, big Larry
- hey lari kolofte
DISCUSSION: in this example, the context is a chat room, and
the girl is calling for attention, shouting “hey, big Larry”. In
Persian, when people want to call for attention, they use the
words ahay or ohoy. So, here hey is a complete instance of
literal translation, transferring the original form.
b) Translation by using an interjection with dissimilar form
but the same meaning:
Sometimes, the exact interjection which is the exact
equivalent of the original does not exist in the target language.
In such cases the translator has to find an interjection which
conveys same meaning, but with dissimilar form. (e.g.,
translating a primary interjection by a secondary interjection as
in God which can be translated as xoda rahm kon-e. This
strategy constitutes about 10% of all the samples.
Table 3. Strategy b and its Frequency
Strategy
Translation by using an interjection
with dissimilar form but the same meaning
Number of occurrences
33
Example is:
1. Ah me, what act?
- Vaay bar man in kodamin amal ast
DISCUSSION: in this example, the interjection ah is used for
expressing surprise. Vaay bar man is exactly the Persian
interjection, used in such situations.
c) Translation by using a non-interjective structure with
similar meaning:
In some cases, the translator cannot find any suitable interjection
to convey the meaning. Here, he or she has to translate the
interjection by using a non-interjective structure, just to
compensate this loss of meaning. It constitutes about 8% of the
samples.
Table 4. Strategy c and its Frequency
Strategy
Translation by using a non-interjective
structure with similar meaning
Number of occurrences
25
An example is provided:
1. Alas! You see how tis- a little o’erparted
- Motaasefan-e didid cheqadr bi tajrob-e bud
DISCUSSION: as you see, motaasefan-e is not an interjection,
but conveys the same meaning.
d) Translation by using an interjection with a different
meaning:
Sometimes, the translator erroneously insists on translating
an interjection by an interjection in the target language, just to
keep the original form reserved. This strategy only constitutes
only about 4% of the samples.
Table 5. Strategy d and its Frequency
Strategy
Translation by using an interjection with a
different meaning
Number of occurrences
11
Here is an example:
1. Ah, Rosencrantz! Good lads, how de ye both?
- Ha rezencratz? Pesarhay-e xub chetorid har dotan?
DISCUSSION: here the interjection ah expresses surprise,
while the Persian ha has been used in an interrogative way.
9092
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
e) Omission
Sometimes, the translator simply ignores the interjection,
thinking that it doesn’t harm the meaning. So, he or she omits it.
This was a prevalent strategy used by the Persian translators,
constituting about 30% of the samples.
Table 6. Strategy e and its Frequency
Strategy
Omission
Number of occurrences
92
1. Well, it was proclaimed damocel
- Dushize ham mashmul-e haman elamiy-e bud
DISCUSSION: the translator has not translated the interjection
well. He could use the interjection xub .
f) Addition of elements:
Sometimes, the translator, in order to convey the meaning,
adds some elements to the meaning of an interjection, just to
make it understandable. This strategy was the least frequently
used strategy by the Persian translators, consisting only about
3% of the samples.
Table 7 Strategy f and its Frequency
Strategy
Addition of elements
Number of occurrences
9
An example is provided:
1. Shit, look like rain
- Aah, kesafat, mixad barun biad
Chi-Square is employed to see if there are any significant
differences between the mentioned strategies and to see which
category has the greatest statistical value, which is directly
related to the hypothesis. The results obtained from the data
analysis are presented in the next section, alongside with the
discussions.
Results and Discussions
The results obtained from the whole analysis of all of the
data used in this study are presented in table 4.8. In this table are
presented the strategy, the observed frequency, the expected
frequency and the Chi-Square value for each category.
Table 8. The Statistical Values of the Study
Strategy
a
b
c
d
e
f
Observed frequency
136
33
25
11
92
9
Expected frequency
51
51
51
51
51
51
Chi-Square
141.6
6.3
13.2
31.3
32.9
34.5
As the Table above shows, and regarding the Chi-Square
calculated, there is a significant difference between the first
strategy (which was literal translation) and the remaining five
strategies which stand approximately level, with Σa=141.6
which is far more greater than strategy (f), which is the second
greatest value with Σf= 34.5.
This huge difference in Chi-Square value indicates that the
strategy a (literal translation) is the most frequently used strategy
the Persian translators for translating interjections. This proves
the hypothesis raised by the researchers. The hypothesis was
that, in order to translate the interjections, Persian translators use
literal translation, more than any other strategies.
Regarding Toury’s law of interference (1995), interference
from ST to TT is default and inevitable. In fact, it is a translation
universal. This transference usually occurs in the linguistic
levels (lexical and syntactical patterning), where these items are
directly copied into the target text system. Where this copying
seems non-normal in TT patterns, it is said that the transfer has
been negative. On the other hand, if the transferred pattern is
accepted and used by TT system, it’s said to be positive.
According to Toury (1995), the tolerance of interference
depends on the sociocultural factors and the prestige of the ST
language. The more prestigious ST language is, the more it will
be tolerated by the TL system.
The second hypothesis raised by the researchers was that,
interference occurs during the process of translation in a way or
the other, and this interference is more of linguistic type. This
hypothesis was proven too. The ST patterns are directly copied
into the TL (here Persian) patterns. How does this interference
occur? The answer is clear; by literal translation, which as the
results showed, turned out to be the most frequently used
strategy used for translating the interjections. This interference
occurred mostly in linguistic level (i.e., syntactic and lexical
levels) rather than the pragmatic level.
Conclusion
While doing the present study, the researchers came across
some interesting facts. Firstly, the researchers found out that the
Persian language is developing actively. If you take a look at
Persian archaic texts, or even the texts from 70 years ago, you
will see that interjections are not a routine usage of Persian
language. In fact, now interjections have been transferred from a
more prestigious language (in this case English) through
translation of literary works of the great English writers such as
Shakespeare, Miller, Doyle and etc. These interjections have
been imported into Persian language usage in the daily
conversations. Interjections such as goh, ooh, aah, kesafat and
hey, which are quite new to the Persian language.
This new trend has been powered and promoted by the
growing number of translations from English into Persian, which
is a rich language regarding interjections. There are more than
550 interjections in English and there are still new once
introduced daily into this language. As was mentioned in the
previous chapters, the most frequent strategy used by Persian
translators, is the literal translation. This could lead to transfer of
ST pattern into linguistic levels of TL, both in syntactic and
lexical patterns. So, more and more new interjections are
introduced into Persian. As we may hear a Persian language
user, saying, aah, laanati bazam dir kard or ox,didi pash chejuri
shekast!.
There has occurred a domestication process about
interjections in Persian language. These interjections transferred
through literal translation are row represented in Persian
dictionaries, convincing Persian language users to accept these
form as correct and clear. Interjections like aah,oh,aah and
laanati are now commonly used by Persian language users.
Four of the ten dramas chosen for this study, were the works
of Shakespeare. This means that most of the works studied, were
written between 1584 to 1613 A.D, which is at least 400 years
earlier than the time of the present study. While on the other
hand, the 20 most commonly used interjections studied, pertain
to the current English usage.
The researchers found out that some interjections such as
ah, oh, and alas, have been more common in old English rather
than current English. On the other hand, some interjections such
as er, hmm , absolutely ,great and gosh are widely used in
current English rather than old English. So, that is why the
researchers could not find any interjection er in the works of
Shakespeare.
During the search for the interjections and by close reading
of the Shakespeare’s dramas, the researchers came across some
interjection which are now archaic and are not used any more in
the current English. Interjections such as ay, alack, hillo, and ho.
9093
Alireza Shahraki et al./ Elixir Ling. & Trans. 47 (2012) 9088-9093
This is again the dichotomy of synchronic/diachronic
translation studies which matters.
Of course, this study was of synchronic type, although it
could be viewed diachronically in one way or another, because it
concerns the interjections from old English texts. This study
shows that some interjections disappeared from the lexicon of a
given language and some other new interjection have been
introduced, over the time.
The matter of drama translation is a highly context bound
matter. It means that the translator should be completely aware
of contextual and pragmatic nuances, involved in a drama. The
translator should take it in his mind that drama translation is not
an only intellectual task, but the drama is going to be seen and
performed on a stage. In fact, he should be careful about the
interchange between theatrical and literary systems. The
researchers observed two of the studied dramas, namely King
Lear and Madam Julie, in city theatre in Tehran. The translations
of interjections were specially observed. The results were
interesting. The words uttered by the actors didn’t conform to
the meanings given on the paper translation, in 40% of the cases.
This could be because of the de-contextual nature of the texts,
which lead to the misinterpretation by the translator.
This study aimed at researching the translation of the
interjections from a skopos-based view.
As the results of the study showed, the most commonly
used strategy used by Persian translator, was literal translation.
The Chi-Square value for this strategy was 141.6, which was for
larger than other strategies studied. This statistical value proved
the first hypothesis of the study, which was the most common
used strategy, used by Persian translators for translation of
English interjections is literal translation.
The second hypothesis which was interrelated to the first
one was also proven. Because interference is a translation
universal and inevitable, it was also correct for interjections,
which were transferred from English to Persian.
The last hypothesis was there is no difference in translation
strategies, taken for translating interjections in the works which
were performed on a stage and those which were not.
Implications
The results of this study are useful for professional and
freelance translators. They could get acquainted to the strategies
and procedures Used for translating interjections. English
language teachers can also be granted from the results of this
study. They can teach interjections regarding the secondary
literature represented in this study. Linguists can also use the
highlights of this study, researching and investigating the
development of interjections both in English and Persian,
synchronically and diachronically.
Suggestions for Further Studies
Due to the time limitations and other limitations, this study
is not a completely comprehensive and perfect work. This study
needs to be supplemented by other similar studies, especially in
this case, in which this study is the first one in Iran. The
researchers could do researches, considering other aspects of
interjections such as their development. Studying the
interjections from a synchronic\diachronic view can also be a
good subject for research in this field. The researchers can also
study about teaching of interjections to foreign language
learners.
References
Aaltonen, S. (2000). Time-sharing on stage. Drama translation
in Theatre and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part
of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101-118.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words. A Coursebook on
Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Baker, M., & Saldanha, G. (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of
translation studies (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Bassnet, S. (1980). Translation studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Bruti. S & Pavesi, M.(2008). Interjections in translated Italian:
looking for traces of dubbed language. In A. Martelli and V.
Pulcini (eds.). investigating English with Corpora. Studies in
Honour of Maria Teresa Prat. 207-222.
Cuenca,
M.
J.
(2000).Defining
the
indefinable?
Interjections.Syntaxis, 3, 29-44.
Cuenca, M. J. (2002b).Translating interjections for dubbing.
Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, pp.299-310.
Fraser, B. (1990).An approach to discourse markers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford:Blackwell.
Jovanovic, V.Z. (2004).The form, position and meaning of
interjections in English. Facta Universitatis. Series: Linguistics
and Literature, 3, 17-28.
Mateo, M. (1995). Constraines and Possibilities of performance
Elements in Drama Translation. Studies in Translatology,1 ,
pp.21-33.
Toury, G. (1995) .Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s.
Vermeer, H.J. (1989). Scopos and commission in translational
action, in L.Venuti(ed.)(2004), pp. 227-38.
Wharton, T. (2000). Interjections, language and the
showing/saying continuum. UCLWPL,12, 173-215.